EDITORIAL : The inherent connection between music and politics

[image from : source]

"You should just stick to music," the comments always read when an artist posts their political opinion on social media. 

Foster the People have always stuck out to me as an example of this. The band's frontman, Mark Foster, is quite vocal on Twitter about his political views, often speaking out against the Trump administration. And consistently, he receives replies telling him to keep politics out of music.

and to anyone else who considers it “off brand” for an artist to talk about social issues, cover-ups, and justice.. A. you need a history lesson B. you’re scared of what i’m saying C. my voice is my brand, whether it’s used to speak or sing

— Foster The People (@fosterthepeople) August 12, 2019

Foster the People are of course famous for their breakout track "Pumped Up Kicks" which became a Top 40 success in 2011. At a first listen, the song feels irresistibly catchy and fun, but a closer look reveals lyrics that explore the growing trend of violence in teens, and ultimately advocate for gun control. People on Twitter tell Foster to keep his politics separate from his music, when the reality is that a very political song is most likely what introduced them to the band in the first place. 

We're seeing a lot more of these political tweets from artists—and apolitical replies from fans—now that many people around the world are vocalizing their support for the Black Lives Matter movement, especially following the recent deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Regis Korchinski Paquet, and Tony McDade, among countless others. 

So why is it that fans don't like it when artists speak out on social media, but they listen to music that preaches the very same values? Are they just not listening hard enough to the lyrics to notice? Or is it because they want music to remain an apathetic safe haven of pure entertainment, free of any statements that might spark an uncomfortable conversation?

The fact of the matter is that art gives us a voice, and artists have always been using this voice to make change. The pop and rock greats of the 20th century—who many now listen to incidentally on classic oldies Spotify playlists—built their careers on political statements. People listen to these artists in search of fulfilling a nostalgia for that time period, but forget the political climates that inspired their music. 

One of the most famous examples of this is Bruce Springsteen, who has had his hit "Born in the U.S.A." lauded as a pro-America anthem, when he really wrote the song about how poorly the American government treated its Vietnam War veterans. Throughout his entire career, Springsteen has lyrically been advocating for the working class and criticizing American life. And he's definitely not the first person to do this. 

Political songs are not, by any stretch of the imagination, a new concept. In our current moment, artists have simply continued this movement by tackling contemporary social issues. Many successful alternative artists weave their views into their music, like Declan McKenna who criticizes the British government, or Arlo Parks who speaks up about mental health, or Stella Donnelly who calls out systemic racism and sexism. Even Top 40 stars like Harry Styles advocate for social justice, by suggesting that we "Treat People With Kindness." 

And that's not to say that these artists don't face any criticism for their political lyrics, because they definitely do. Ultimately, however, if these songs are sonically attractive, they will consistently achieve commercial success, and then we end up listening to their songs in passing, without necessarily paying special attention to the lyrics. 

This is exactly why I believe it is so important to remember where these sounds came from. Many genres were founded on a specific political belief or social justice movement. Think about how folk music has always had anti-war and community-based themes, specifically related to the 1960's folk revival. Or, how disco began largely out of a desire to create a space for Black people and LGBT people who did not feel welcome in the increasingly elitist rock scene of the 1970's. 

Even the actual sounds of these genres have caused significant ideological shifts. Consider the beginnings of rock 'n' roll in the 1950's, when artists like Elvis or The Beatles were banned by TV stations and hated by parents for their radical sounds that caused mass hysteria. Rock music symbolized the creation of a teen culture that actively went against adults, which was revolutionary at the time. And even more importantly, rock music was created in Black communities out of experimentation with rhythm and blues sounds. 

Alternative music, at its core, was created to oppose the mainstream, both sonically and politically. In the DIY scenes of the 1970's and 80's, alternative music went against commercial rock and pop music by openly questioning the current state of the world. Alternative music was built on speaking out against authority, so we shouldn't be surprised that our contemporary alternative bands are getting political on social media. All aspects of the genre itself are inherently political.

Music—whether it's lyrically, sonically, or ideologically—has always been revolutionary, and these are just a few examples. Contemporary music continues to contribute to the progressiveness of each new generation that passes, as sounds become more experimental, certain topics become more acceptable, and more diverse voices are being heard. 

Art gives us that voice. It gives us the ability to think about the world we live in, to learn about the lived experiences of others, and to question what was once accepted as true. These conversations might be uncomfortable, but they need to be had. And they can't be ignored, because these issues are affecting the lives of real people, right at this very moment. Because ultimately, if art gives us a voice and we aren't using it to help create some kind of change for the better, then what are we really using it for?